Did anybody ever believe we would see a day when so many people would forsake the liberties our nation has bestowed upon us in favor of false promises of security? With the possibility of a so called "convention of the states'" gaining momentum, this is a question that deserves a great deal of attention. While Benjamin Franklin will always be remembered for his declaration that people who forego liberty for security will end up with neither; it must be remembered that the constitution has within its own mechanisms, the very methods in which the people may abolish it. The constitution is written on the principle that legitimate power of government is dependent on the will and consent of the governed. What this essentially means is that only by a voluntary surrender of our constitutionally derived authority can the people lose it to absolute despotism. This one principle must be remembered as we drive ever closer to the possibility of what is being referred to as an Article V convention. Many scribes have referred to an Article V convention as a fallacy, while others, claiming to be strict constitutional conservatives, hail it as the only way to save the republic. This author intends to research the legitimacy of a "convention of the states" as it is believed that only congress can call a constitutional convention, and as Publius Huldah writes in this article, state legislators can only appeal to the congress and apply for a convention, they can't run one.
While the possibility of a convention may be appealing on many levels, the very fact that the constitution derives its authority from the consent of the governed could very well cause problems in today's world. Many millions of people have jumped on board Obama's magical, fundamental transformation choo choo train, and could very well demand its abolishment. As Publius points out in her article, the method of ratifying the new constitution in 1787 was new and developed as they went. What would stop people who conspire to do away with it from making new rules that support the demands of those, which would be represented as, "consenting to its abolishment?" Or as another author on the subject Robert Broadus asks, "What will stop progressives from taking full advantage of this convention and completely rewriting it in their image?"
When dealing with the "consent of the governed" issue, you have to realize that those seeking to usurp your liberties know full well that only by your "consent" can they place you under their thumb. This surely explains why an education concerning the constitution virtually ends in junior high school. Only a public educated in the science of constitutional government, a public fully aware of their rights and a public with the moral intestinal fortitude to self-govern will maintain their personal liberty. The very idea of freedom is now viewed as a reason our nation has so many problems. The constitution itself has become, in the eyes of those educated in the doctrines of social justice, as "oppressive." While those espousing the principles of liberty understand the necessity of binding the hands of those that govern, others, having been taught that they deserve an equal share of society's resources view it as a means of limiting government's power to provide it for them. The system our founders put in place, as President Obama so often declares, prevents him from establishing the promised Utopian paradise of socialism and therefore, is hampering progress.
In other words, society, through education, is being taught to consent to tyranny. People have been denied an honest education into constitutional government as a means of convincing them of the need for social change. By teaching people that they are oppressed, they are organizing a mass power base in which to carry out their bidding, which when implemented, is actually being done in accordance with the constitution itself. Let's take the words of Justice Story from "Familiar Exposition of the Constitution."
We shall treat our constitution, not as a mere compact, or league, or confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the States, during their good pleasure; but, (as it purports on its face to be) as a Constitution of Government, framed and adopted by the people of the United States, and obligatory upon all the States, until it is altered, amended, or abolished by the people, in the manner pointed out in the instrument itself. (Meese, Spalding & Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 2005)
As it is clearly stated here, the constitution, being written to instill legitimate powers of government from the consent of the governed, can very well be done away with if that's what the "governed" consent to. With the progressive left being in control of much of our government and a huge portion of the population completely ignorant on what liberties would disappear with the abolishment of the constitution, perhaps an Article V convention should be viewed as a legitimate way for those seeking total power to obtain it. Before rushing into this potential disaster, perhaps an effort to educate the nation on the constitution is in order. When everyone understands what the constitution really says and why it says it, if they still want a convention, at least it will be by "informed consent."Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.